LA judge stops foster kid's enlistment

[Aircrew Instruc]

I'm glad we al give our blood, sweat, and tears to protect jackasses like her. Personally I think if you don't like whats happening here leave we are not stopping you. On a side note I saw on Fox News today that Harvard is being petitioned by women Muslim students to have a private gym so they can exercise with no men around because of their religion??? Are you frickin serious??? Why is it the average American needs to bend and be accepting of all these differences but God forbid we want to ban flag burning or support our troops because someone finds it offensive. Sorry I've had it with this crap lately Rant over.

 

[phrogdriver]

I would hope that this judge invalidates any contract or legal document signed by a 17-year-old, perhaps plea agreements signed by youthful offenders, but I'm sure her attitude only goes as far as military contracts.

What's worse is she probably blames society for not giving opportunities to disadvantaged youth, as she slams a door on this one.

 

[mrkoje]

While I don't necessarily agree with her ruling I do believe she was acting well within her scope of responsibility as the kid's legal guardian. He was a foster child after all and as such the court is appointed responsibility for the child's well-being. In any event, he will still be able to make the decision of whether or not he wants to join the military when he turns 18.

Let me put this another way.

If I were a 17 and wanting to join the Army or Marine Corps during a time of war and a year early, well then my parents would give me a swift kick in the ass for even asking. They aren't anti-military but they do have reservations of why we are in Iraq. To them, well they are thinking that they are protecting me from making a poor decision. Without the parents supporting the idea then there is no early entry. Every delayed entry contract requires the signatures of both parents (one if the child has only one parent) or that of a legal guardian.

I think most of you are missing the point that the judge was acting as a guardian and she felt that it was in the child's best interest to wait a year. I agree with her judgement in that perspective even if it seems anti-military. She is a judge and is either elected or appointed through some measure by her constituency to make decisions like this.

Now on the flip side. I actually joined the Marine Corps delayed entry program in early 2000. I had to practically drag my parents to the recruiting station for them to sign. They were very hesitant. Not only did they want to see me go to college instead but they were afraid of me going to a dangerous area of the word. I don't blame them either since my father lost his brother during the Vietnam War.

Just because the judge blocked this kid's "early" enlistment doesn't mean he won't get to serve if he so chooses. It is also not that big of a deal that he didn't join a year early in the grand scheme of things. It isn't like they are going to run out of infantry positions in the near future.

The kid can still study Marine Corps knowledge and still work on his freaking pull-ups and when he turns 18 he can sign the dotted line for himself.


Semper Fi,

mrkoje

 

[eddie]

The kid can still study Marine Corps knowledge and still work on his freaking pull-ups and when he turns 18 he can sign the dotted line for himself.

Other have already stated that this VERY point makes the judge's ruling all the more ridiculous. She isn't changing anything, she's just injecting her personal opinion into a legal manner.

 

[mrkoje]

Other have already stated that this VERY point makes the judge's ruling all the more ridiculous. She isn't changing anything, she's just injecting her personal opinion into a legal manner.

As the legal guardian I think she is supposed to have a personal opinion as to what is or is not in the best interests of a juvenile under her charge.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[insanebikerboy]

I've gotta agree with Mrkjoe. I joined the Navy when I was 17 and I had to have my mom give permission to the recruiter so I could sign the line, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to join. Is the judge putting off the inevitable of this kid joining the Marines? I think she is, and he'll probably go the day he turns 18 and sign up. I don't like her decision, but I think it holds water.

The reason this is an issue is because he is a foster kid, and the judge is his legally appointed guardian. That raises a whole other set of issues on who makes legal decisions for a foster child, but as it stands now, the judge is the one responsible for him. If a parent wanted to forbid their child from joining when they were 17, which I would imagine is a safe thing to say at least one parent has at some point, then I wouldn't see that being the issue this is.

 

[ajgeng]

I'd like to take this opportunity to give her the finger

No, she's not supposed to have a personal opinion, she's supposed to be impartial. What really pisses me off is her snide attitude toward the military in general and recruiters in particular. All she did is steal 10 grand from this dude. To that I plagiarize a more famous Marine, "I wouldn't cross the street to watch her slit her wrists."

 

[ajgeng]

When I was 17 I said, "Mom, just sign the damn paper. I'm going to do it next year anyway."

 

[SkywardET]

Unless the article is wrong, her decision was based upon her rejection of the occupation of Iraq and of military recruiters in general. Although I can accept that other motivations for rejecting a foster child's desire to enlist early are reasonable, it doesn't appear as though she used a reasonable standard as her criterion for the decision she made.

In other words, she sucks.

 

[mrkoje]

No, she's not supposed to have a personal opinion, she's supposed to be impartial. What really pisses me off is her snide attitude toward the military in general and recruiters in particular. All she did is steal 10 grand from this dude. To that I plagiarize a more famous Marine, "I wouldn't cross the street to watch her slit her wrists."

Just because the Marine recruiter in the article said, "We just gave out the last one [bonus] for recon today to another kid for $10,000," doesn't imply that this kid would have been eligible for anything. To say that the judge effectively deprived the kid of $10,000 is faulty at best.

If the kid is such an excellent prospective recruit today that the Marine Corps of all services would pay him a substantial but entirely extra $10,000 to enlist early then I'm sure they will pay him the same a year later.

 

[mrkoje]

Unless the article is wrong, her decision was based upon her rejection of the occupation of Iraq and of military recruiters in general. Although I can accept that other motivations for rejecting a foster child's desire to enlist early are reasonable, it doesn't appear as though she used a reasonable standard as her criterion for the decision she made.

In other words, she sucks.

She sucks as much as the countless other mothers and fathers that won't let there child enlist at 17 for the same or somewhat similar reasons.

 

[Spekkio]

Joe, you make a lot of good points, but the difference here is that the judge has not raised this child from an early age -- his foster parents have. The only reason they can't sign off on the child is because the mother and father's whereabouts are unknown, so they can't approve the adoption. If his foster parents are willing to go to court and plea for the judge's signature, then the judge should sign off on it. He/she has no business making this decision for who is, for all intents and purposes, a complete stranger because she disagrees with the war in Iraq and thinks that all recruiters are scum.

On top of that, the fact that she would stereotype all recruiters leads me to believe that she's an extremely close-minded individual, and therefore unfit for a judge.

 

[BurghGuy]

I'd have to agree with mrkoje, the judge was doing something that was well within their power. Not that it doesn't make it any less douche-baggie. The fact that the judge brought their personal opinion in on it is practically irrelevant, since they weren't called upon in a normal plaintiff-defendant or interpret-the-law situation, but in the capacity as a decision making legal guardian. If one of the judge's kids wanted to DEP and they said no, there'd be no way around it other than wait till he was 18.

It's a rough setup at that point in the foster program (17 years old). The legal guardian (judge) does not typically know the child on a personal level (his hopes and dreams) and doesn't help raise them, but has the ability to make decisions for them. This works fine if the kid is 7, but not always when the kid is 17. I really like how he's helping push a bill to give the power to sign DEP to the foster parents and the child's social worker, since they typically know the child better and what their intentions are.

Personally, I think the judge is a douche for denying a child of the foster program ANY shot at furthering his education/career-training and achieving his goals in life (no matter your opinion of the military or the war). Children who age out of the foster program tend to have a rough enough time as it is.

 

[BurghGuy]

Joe, you make a lot of good points, but the difference here is that the judge has not raised this child from an early age -- his foster parents have. The only reason they can't sign off on the child is because the mother and father's whereabouts are unknown, so they can't approve the adoption.

My wife and I just recently adopted a child out of the foster program, it doesn't always work that way. These foster parents may or may not have raised him from a young age, and chances are, if he was in since a young child he's had SEVERAL foster parents. As for adoption, the wearabouts of his birth parents is irrelevant, as long as parental rights have been removed. Most kids who have been in the program this long have probably had their birth parents parental rights denied for a long time. (i.e. theres other reasons his foster families won't adopt him, not everyone who does the foster program wants to adopt a child) The social worker is someone who also knows a foster child very well, our son had more foster families than he had social workers, and he's only 2.
Doesn't change the fact that they're both still a better fit for making this decision than the judge.

If his foster parents are willing to go to court and plea for the judge's signature, then the judge should sign off on it. He/she has no business making this decision for who is, for all intents and purposes, a complete stranger because she disagrees with the war in Iraq and thinks that all recruiters are scum.

Very good point, and it looks like he's helping to push a bill into legislation on that exact point.

On top of that, the fact that she would stereotype all recruiters leads me to believe that she's an extremely close-minded individual, and therefore unfit for a judge.

Agreed, this judge has her head up her ass and should have her credentials seriously looked at.

 

[snake020]

The left is just so sure that nobody is capable or responsible enough to be their own "decider." (Of course, the right's not much better, they just limit it to moral issues.)

This case reminds me of that California judge that struck parts of the illegal immigration legislation the people of CA voted for in a referendum. Don't remember the year, prop 187 I think...

1994. The people passed it with a 60% majority, while some lib judges decided to find a way to call it unconstitutional. Power to the people indeed.